ForumGarden

spot;1037056 wrote:

You have a local youth problem, so did where I lived then. The short term deciding factor is effective policing and better street lights and cameras which criminalizes those who've gone bad. Long term it's education which stops people going bad in the first place. We need both on a continuous basis.


We certainly do..... the biggest critism is the lack of policing and camera's.

It is a turn about situation because St Pauls and city centre years back was a problem. Police focused on these area's and now you can live as you do.

Whilst here, we were the outlying village that was evergreen and peacefull. As it caught up with the rest of society, police and the authoritie's refuse to look at it as anything other than the little village that it was.

Tell that to the 65 yr old man who left the local village pub one night last week after attending a church meeting in the rooms there and had a teenager bottle him from behind for no reason in the world infront of his young son.

The reason we hear bleated by police that we do have a youth problem here is because all 6 of South Gloucs cars are in Kingswood, the main hotspot of trouble.

This has to go back to government funding also with the fact that police view youth crime as class c most of the time until one over-steps the mark, bottling a 65 yr old man. Then they leap in their noddy cars trying to look as if they are doing something.

guppy;1037098 wrote: my response was more directly toward Red..she is quick to say..kill the kids..as an answer to the problem..:-3


It does however, raise the question 'are kids born bad'. Some here, recoil at the mere thought of it but in truth, geneticists are working at identifying rogue gene's that can be removed when trying to concieve. I believe they have already isolated the 'addictive' gene that leads some babie's to naturally depend on alcohol or drugs as they get older.

I am not saying that kids ARE born evil, just that it is an interesting way of looking at things.

oscar;1037115 wrote: It does however, raise the question 'are kids born bad'. Some here, recoil at the mere thought of it but in truth, geneticists are working at identifying rogue gene's that can be removed when trying to concieve. I believe they have already isolated the 'addictive' gene that leads some babie's to naturally depend on alcohol or drugs as they get older.

I am not saying that kids ARE born evil, just that it is an interesting way of looking at things.


I believe some kids are born "evil" lacking a moral consience that most of society does have. There are different extremes of it. its not all society..the kids are born without the mental ability to develop a consience. to abide by rules..what i was trying to point out to Red is how far would you go to eliminate it..mental illness is and could be one of the defects eliminated..what is considered "evil" only murder? killing of animals? or do you think it should go so far as to eliminate all posiblities of someone that could eventually go corrupt? what makes for a pedaphile? what causes some to steal? to become rapists? after working in the prison system in the state of georgia..its scary..most mentally ill criminals are sent to special prisons here..their crimes are no different than what the so called "normal" prisoner has done..but if you wanted to go to extremes to say...kill the defective kids..the ones who killed an animal..then following that train of thought...if you eliminate all prisoners that are classified with a mental illness..you would free up a big part of the prison system. If you eliminate all children with mental illness you would stop alot of crime in its tracks..but not all of it..not by a long shot..

oscar;1037115 wrote: I am not saying that kids ARE born evil, just that it is an interesting way of looking at things.Every gene is there because there are circumstances in which it provides a survival advantage. You've decided to label some of them evil because the people possessing them are more likely to break the law. I do hope they find greed genes and selfishness genes and gluttonous hoarding genes to modify as well, and social responsibility genes to enhance. Fair enough, call them evil genes if that's what's been found, they're evil genes in that they increase a likelihood of criminality though nobody ever developed them with malice aforethought.

By what possible stretch of the English language can someone who's carried such a gene from conception be described as deserving punishment?

I've been pushing this thread toward accepting that criminals need treatment to bring their potential for future criminality below that of the rest of their age-group. You're saying the condition's medical, that's a good sign. Alongside the behavioural therapy I'd expected they can take gene modification when your scientists have it working. The potential for rehabilitation increases all the while, doesn't it.

To be honest I suspect the story's more complicated than the tabloids would have us believe.

spot;1037149 wrote: Every gene is there because there are circumstances in which it provides a survival advantage. You've decided to label some of them evil because the people possessing them are more likely to break the law. I do hope they find greed genes and selfishness genes and gluttonous hoarding genes to modify as well, and social responsibility genes to enhance. Fair enough, call them evil genes if that's what's been found, they're evil genes in that they increase a likelihood of criminality though nobody ever developed them with malice aforethought.



By what possible stretch of the English language can someone who's carried such a gene from conception be described as deserving punishment?



I've been pushing this thread toward accepting that criminals need treatment to bring their potential for future criminality below that of the rest of their age-group. You're saying the condition's medical, that's a good sign. Alongside the behavioural therapy I'd expected they can take gene modification when your scientists have it working. The potential for rehabilitation increases all the while, doesn't it.



To be honest I suspect the story's more complicated than the tabloids would have us believe.




heck..i would seriously like to know where i was when the "get your own way at all costs gene" was passed out..i definitely wasnt in that line...and i am pissed..:p

more than likley i was smelling the flowers and not paying attention to roll call..:rolleyes:

spot;1037149 wrote: Every gene is there because there are circumstances in which it provides a survival advantage. You've decided to label some of them evil because the people possessing them are more likely to break the law. I do hope they find greed genes and selfishness genes and gluttonous hoarding genes to modify as well, and social responsibility genes to enhance. Fair enough, call them evil genes if that's what's been found, they're evil genes in that they increase a likelihood of criminality though nobody ever developed them with malice aforethought.

By what possible stretch of the English language can someone who's carried such a gene from conception be described as deserving punishment?

I've been pushing this thread toward accepting that criminals need treatment to bring their potential for future criminality below that of the rest of their age-group. You're saying the condition's medical, that's a good sign. Alongside the behavioural therapy I'd expected they can take gene modification when your scientists have it working. The potential for rehabilitation increases all the while, doesn't it.

To be honest I suspect the story's more complicated than the tabloids would have us believe.


I actually said 'I am not saying kids ARE born evil Spot. I take it, that as you quoted me, it was myself you were infering your next post at.

I simply meant that Redglitters idea that kids ARE born evil, is a debatable subject worthy of disscussion.

It was why i brought the subject of geneticsists isolating faulty gene's into the arena.

It is what society deems to be 'faulty' that i am oppossed to. What one member of society finds unacceptable behaviour, another would find moderate behaviour.

Please answer me this one Spot?? Humour me.

I have approx 40 neices, nephews and great nieces and nephews. 39 of those are an absolute credit to our family. They are grade A students, in college or some higher level of the sport of their choice.

We have one rogue one. We look for explanations regually and find none. He has been checked for every disorder know to the medical proffession including bi-polar disorder. He is extremely bright and intelligent. He certainly understands what he has done and what he is doing.

He has been brought up exactly the same as the others and pays his repects to war memorials and holds shop doors open to women and gives his seat up on the bus to elderly people.

From his 14th to 15th birthday, he was arrested 10 times. He has been cautioned 5 times and before the magistrates 4 times.

The last time he was before the magistrates, i warned him that he had gone too far and was looking at a custodial sentance especailly with his record. I went to court with him in the hope that i may be able to ask the magistrate to put him in youth custody for his own good. He lives in a dangerous world.

I was astounded when giving the severity of his crimes and his previous, the magistrate handed down 40 hours community service and a £55 fine. The Magistrate added that he considered him to be a lucky young man for having such good parents who he said did not need a parenting order.

Explain him to me Spot please?

I have him staying for a week next week so i'd be interested in your views.

oscar;1037247 wrote: I actually said 'I am not saying kids ARE born evil Spot. I take it, that as you quoted me, it was myself you were infering your next post at.

I simply meant that Redglitters idea that kids ARE born evil, is a debatable subject worthy of disscussion.

It was why i brought the subject of geneticsists isolating faulty gene's into the arena.

It is what society deems to be 'faulty' that i am oppossed to. What one member of society finds unacceptable behaviour, another would find moderate behaviour.

Please answer me this one Spot?? Humour me.

I have approx 40 neices, nephews and great nieces and nephews. 39 of those are an absolute credit to our family. They are grade A students, in college or some higher level of the sport of their choice.

We have one rogue one. We look for explanations regually and find none. He has been checked for every disorder know to the medical proffession including bi-polar disorder. He is extremely bright and intelligent. He certainly understands what he has done and what he is doing.

He has been brought up exactly the same as the others and pays his repects to war memorials and holds shop doors open to women and gives his seat up on the bus to elderly people.

From his 14th to 15th birthday, he was arrested 10 times. He has been cautioned 5 times and before the magistrates 4 times.

The last time he was before the magistrates, i warned him that he had gone too far and was looking at a custodial sentance especailly with his record. I went to court with him in the hope that i may be able to ask the magistrate to put him in youth custody for his own good. He lives in a dangerous world.

I was astounded when giving the severity of his crimes and his previous, the magistrate handed down 40 hours community service and a £55 fine. The Magistrate added that he considered him to be a lucky young man for having such good parents who he said did not need a parenting order.

Explain him to me Spot please?

I have him staying for a week next week so i'd be interested in your views.


I think one of the things to look at is what type of crimes does he commit. Are they kid type crimes...or adult type crimes? The reason I ask is that I have a cousin who kept getting arrested when he was young. But he got arrested for very small stuff. It really wasn't anything that the other kids were not doing, but he always managed to get caught. He grew up fine....I guess he learned how not to get caught...LOL. I would not say that in his case that he has some kind of bad gene. But more violent type crimes from a child coming from a good home.....well it would make some sense that there is some kind of gene related problem.

wildhorses;1037273 wrote: I think one of the things to look at is what type of crimes does he commit. Are they kid type crimes...or adult type crimes? The reason I ask is that I have a cousin who kept getting arrested when he was young. But he got arrested for very small stuff. It really wasn't anything that the other kids were not doing, but he always managed to get caught. He grew up fine....I guess he learned how not to get caught...LOL. I would not say that in his case that he has some kind of bad gene. But more violent type crimes from a child coming from a good home.....well it would make some sense that there is some kind of gene related problem.


Thankyou for that.

It is a puzzle to us as his crimes are often violent. We just don't understand it. His parents abhore violence as does all of our family. He has younger siblings who he spends a great deal of time and patience with. That rules out his feeling isolated from the family.

He is also what our police call a 'twoker'. This is taking a car without copnsent and driving away. he was last caught speeding around his city centre at 90mph with his mates in the back at the age of 15. He has never been taught to drive either. he learnt that himself.

We can not even say that he is in with the wrong crowd.... he is the wrong crowd. He is the one that other parents warn their kids against.

He has also been caught with a weapon. To be found in possession of a weapon here is an arrestable offence so of course the police stop him the moment he's walked out the door and he's dumb enough to go out with one, knowing they will pick on him.

It's almost like he is daring the police to see how far he can go and what he can do to annoy them. He has a hatred of the police and absolutely no respect for them. Where has that come from? His attitude and crimes came before one of the adult family members found themselves in a spot of bother with local police so we can't say he was influenced by that. (Although, he thought it was 'well cool'). Unfortunately.

oscar;1037247 wrote: I actually said 'I am not saying kids ARE born evil Spot. I take it, that as you quoted me, it was myself you were infering your next post at.

I simply meant that Redglitters idea that kids ARE born evil, is a debatable subject worthy of disscussion.

It was why i brought the subject of geneticsists isolating faulty gene's into the arena.

It is what society deems to be 'faulty' that i am oppossed to. What one member of society finds unacceptable behaviour, another would find moderate behaviour.

Please answer me this one Spot?? Humour me.


Focusing on this specific section, my post was entirely triggered by your comment "I believe they have already isolated the 'addictive' gene that leads some babie's to naturally depend on alcohol or drugs as they get older". You're vouching for it with "I believe", you're ascribing addiction to alcohol and drugs in some people to their carrying this 'addictive' gene. Nothing to do with why you posted it, or how it complements RG's comments, it's purely a reaction to that paragraph and the notion that it could "raise the question are kids born bad". The behaviour you raised is alcohol dependency and drug addiction. So, you're not saying some people are born evil, you're saying some people are born to "naturally depend on alcohol or drugs as they get older" and that "in truth, geneticists are working at identifying rogue gene's that can be removed when trying to concieve".

What else am I supposed to get from this other than that you think gene therapy can be used to cure social problems? In what way is this mythical gene you're describing one that might ever be thought to lead to "moderate behaviour"?

There are a number of reasons why, even if this mythical gene existed exactly as you've described it, it would be a catastrophe for the human race to eliminate it.

All but my last sentence was an exploration of the happy-happy land in which you were right and it could be shown that a given gene was responsible for a criminal behaviour. It centred on my asking how it would be possible then for someone who's carried such a gene from conception to be described as deserving punishment for committing that crime.

My final line, "I suspect the story's more complicated than the tabloids would have us believe", was the wake-up bit suggesting that the whole idea is a meaningless fairytale.

oscar;1037247 wrote: Explain him to me Spot please?

I have him staying for a week next week so i'd be interested in your views.


It's single momentary events that provide central pivotal moments on growing up one way or another. What I'm quite sure is that the lad knows the answer even if he's never worked it out or passed it on to anyone.

The one thing that isn't going to change his path for the better is people wishing he were someone he's not. Yes he might have been someone different but he isn't. It's where he can go that counts, not where he might have been. There are hugely different conversations that lead away from those two starting points, the positive ones and the negative ones.

oscar;1037286 wrote: Thankyou for that.

It is a puzzle to us as his crimes are often violent. We just don't understand it. His parents abhore violence as does all of our family. He has younger siblings who he spends a great deal of time and patience with. That rules out his feeling isolated from the family.

He is also what our police call a 'twoker'. This is taking a car without copnsent and driving away. he was last caught speeding around his city centre at 90mph with his mates in the back at the age of 15. He has never been taught to drive either. he learnt that himself.

We can not even say that he is in with the wrong crowd.... he is the wrong crowd. He is the one that other parents warn their kids against.

He has also been caught with a weapon. To be found in possession of a weapon here is an arrestable offence so of course the police stop him the moment he's walked out the door and he's dumb enough to go out with one, knowing they will pick on him.

It's almost like he is daring the police to see how far he can go and what he can do to annoy them. He has a hatred of the police and absolutely no respect for them. Where has that come from? His attitude and crimes came before one of the adult family members found themselves in a spot of bother with local police so we can't say he was influenced by that. (Although, he thought it was 'well cool'). Unfortunately.


WOW. It sounds like there is a problem with this kid. I have heard of this before....where one kid in the family has a problem, but all the rest of the kids seem fine. Maybe it is not how you are raised, but how you react to how you are raised. Different people have different personalities. Events the affect one person will have no effect on another. That is the only other thing I can think of...besides "it is in the genes".

oscar;1037092 wrote: I think you'll find from the very beginning that it was not i who said defective children should be killed. I was the one in favour of a prison sentence.

I like alot of what you say but i do not agree with embryonic selection.

Whilst geneticsists are un-covering more and more research into faulty gene's being linked to physcotic tendencie's, the whole idea of 'designer babie's' revolts me.

Spot and i have debated the system of punishment vs re-habilitation for several pages, so i would not be bothering to do that should i believe that the boys should just be killed.

I have also critised the comments from the newspaper who broke the story here for putting readers views on line that the children should face death. That is stupid which i repeat incase you didn't read the post where i said it.


I have re-quoted myself Spot as i probably did not clarify myself in that post.

I actually said that the idea of 'designer babie's' revolting.

Geneticsists are currently researching evidence that embryo's can carry a defective gene that CAN lead to physcotic tendancie's later in life just as they claim that an 'addictive' gene has been located. So far, i don't remember seeing any proof.

I merely raised the subject to give others some-thing to debate.

I certainly would not have debated at length with you the difference between re-habilitation and punishment if i thought it was as easy as removing genes before conception.

I also said in another post that where this is open to failure, is that what can be seen as unacceptable to one, could be moderate to another. That is why i believe the removal of genes before conception is morally and ethically wrong. You would then have a situation of one human being 'playing god'.

After all, is that what the Nazi regime were working towards... a super race??

Babie's have to be born as they are concieved. the work comes later in life if those babie's develope the 'addictive' nature or show disturbence or violence.

We agreed i believe that a prevention and re-habilitation process was needed to be in place to deal with children showing signs of disturbance.

wildhorses;1037326 wrote: WOW. It sounds like there is a problem with this kid. I have heard of this before....where one kid in the family has a problem, but all the rest of the kids seem fine. Maybe it is not how you are raised, but how you react to how you are raised. Different people have different personalities. Events the affect one person will have no effect on another. That is the only other thing I can think of...besides "it is in the genes".


I have even studied his fathers side of the family to see if there are any clue's there.

I remember when he was caught speeding in a car at 90mph that i told him i'd either be helping his mother identify his body in a morgue or visiting him in prison. he just said 'Yeah, i know'.

he has never showed any sign of disturbance or abnormal behaviour. He gets on great with kids at school, he is not a bully etc etc.

I saw something some weeks ago. I said to him that, was he sure that he wanted to come and stay for a week as it would be a little boring for him. I said that my husband, said he'd take him fishing to teach him freashwater angling and that my husband had tents and all the gear for them to camp out. Well, his eyes just lit up. It was quite touching and i thought omg, that's what my dad did with him when he was little.

I wonder of those kids were bi-polar?

In which case yes, they should be killed along with the rest of the mentally ill.

JacksDad;1037352 wrote: I wonder of those kids were bi-polar?

In which case yes, they should be killed along with the rest of the mentally ill.


Are you serious?

oscar;1037335 wrote: I have even studied his fathers side of the family to see if there are any clue's there.

I remember when he was caught speeding in a car at 90mph that i told him i'd either be helping his mother identify his body in a morgue or visiting him in prison. he just said 'Yeah, i know'.

he has never showed any sign of disturbance or abnormal behaviour. He gets on great with kids at school, he is not a bully etc etc.

I saw something some weeks ago. I said to him that, was he sure that he wanted to come and stay for a week as it would be a little boring for him. I said that my husband, said he'd take him fishing to teach him freashwater angling and that my husband had tents and all the gear for them to camp out. Well, his eyes just lit up. It was quite touching and i thought omg, that's what my dad did with him when he was little.


Ahhh...yes. Camping with Dad. I use to like that. He did not have to work and was not tired from working...so he had plenty of attention to give me. There must be something about that experience that has good memories for him. Maybe this is an opportunity. Maybe your husband can have a heart to heart talk with him and try to find out why he seems to be on a self destructive path. Good luck. Teens can be difficult.

wildhorses;1037359 wrote: Ahhh...yes. Camping with Dad. I use to like that. He did not have to work and was not tired from working...so he had plenty of attention to give me. There must be something about that experience that has good memories for him. Maybe this is an opportunity. Maybe your husband can have a heart to heart talk with him and try to find out why he seems to be on a self destructive path. Good luck. Teens can be difficult.


Thanks.

Also, as my father died, i'm wondering if his grief was over-looked because he was a child. Once he's up the river sizzling sausages with hubby, i'm sure my husband can talk to him. He sorted out his own boy when he was having teen problems.

I can't believe what he did last time, he was very very lucky the police had only circumstancial evidence. He would have gone down for that. His crimes are gang related so that opens up another whole can of worms.

As for this debate... have you managed to catch up on all the posts? It seemed to end up as Spot and Oscar's thread.

oscar;1037364 wrote: Thanks.

Also, as my father died, i'm wondering if his grief was over-looked because he was a child. Once he's up the river sizzling sausages with hubby, i'm sure my husband can talk to him. He sorted out his own boy when he was having teen problems.

I can't believe what he did last time, he was very very lucky the police had only circumstancial evidence. He would have gone down for that. His crimes are gang related so that opens up another whole can of worms.

As for this debate... have you managed to catch up on all the posts? It seemed to end up as Spot and Oscar's thread.


Yes I did get to read all the posts. I was in the ring with spot for quite awhile the other night. He is funny...some of the stuff he manages to come up with. LOL.

You said your father died when your (nephew?) was a child. Maybe he had a special connection with your father. Maybe he felt alone or lost after that....if he was never able to really connect with anyone else. Maybe those camping trips were much more meaningful to him than anyone realized. I had an aunt that I had a special connection to. She was the one I always called when I felt troubled. Many times I didn't even tell her I was feeling troubled. But somehow it always made me feel like everything was allright when I talked to her. She died...after she died I felt lost.

wildhorses;1037372 wrote: Yes I did get to read all the posts. I was in the ring with spot for quite awhile the other night. He is funny...some of the stuff he manages to come up with. LOL.

You said your father died when your (nephew?) was a child. Maybe he had a special connection with your father. Maybe he felt alone or lost after that....if he was never able to really connect with anyone else. Maybe those camping trips were much more meaningful to him than anyone realized. I had an aunt that I had a special connection to. She was the one I always called when I felt troubled. Many times I didn't even tell her I was feeling troubled. But somehow it always made me feel like everything was allright when I talked to her. She died...after she died I felt lost.


I am sure your right, infact the more i discuss it with some-one other than family, it does seem a little clearer. Sometimes, you can't see the root cause because your too close to the problem.

I'm wondering now that because his siblings came after my dad died, he felt my dad was only his, if you know what i mean. If his siblings were there when my dad was alive, my dad would have shared his time with all of them but my nephew was the only child when he died.

What are your views on this punishment vs re-habilitation that Spot and i have been debating?

oscar;1037382 wrote: I am sure your right, infact the more i discuss it with some-one other than family, it does seem a little clearer. Sometimes, you can't see the root cause because your too close to the problem.

I'm wondering now that because his siblings came after my dad died, he felt my dad was only his, if you know what i mean. If his siblings were there when my dad was alive, my dad would have shared his time with all of them but my nephew was the only child when he died.

What are your views on this punishment vs re-habilitation that Spot and i have been debating?


I think that rehab is a good idea under some circumstances for some crimes. Like if a kid is caught shoplifting.....that would be a rehab case. Find out why he is stealing and try to solve the problem. But the vicious crime of beating an animal to death....a kangaroo. Kangaroos are not small animals....they are pretty big. It would take a lot of violence to actually beat a kangaroo to death...think about it. This is a different type of crime....a different type of mentality. Those kids that did that are violent and they have to be separated from other people...especially other kids. They are dangerous. For this crime I would support prosecuting the kids as adults. They can't, of course, go to an adult prison....but they should go to jail for a long time. Rehab in combination with jail time would be a good thing. But rehab instead of jail time....no. This would just give them the opportunity to hurt someone.....maybe another kid.

wildhorses;1037391 wrote: I think that rehab is a good idea under some circumstances for some crimes. Like if a kid is caught shoplifting.....that would be a rehab case. Find out why he is stealing and try to solve the problem. But the vicious crime of beating an animal to death....a kangaroo. Kangaroos are not small animals....they are pretty big. It would take a lot of violence to actually beat a kangaroo to death...think about it. This is a different type of crime....a different type of mentality. Those kids that did that are violent and they have to be separated from other people...especially other kids. They are dangerous. For this crime I would support prosecuting the kids as adults. They can't, of course, go to an adult prison....but they should go to jail for a long time. Rehab in combination with jail time would be a good thing. But rehab instead of jail time....no. This would just give them the opportunity to hurt someone.....maybe another kid.


This has been a lot of my debate with Spot. I do believe that the kids have to know that they have commited a crime and there is some form of punishment. If we do place them in a private run re-habilitation unit without punishment, then my fear is, that it would be no more than a children's home and the message to the kid was lost.

In a youth prison, just the very loss of liberty is a form of punishment. Just the right to walk down the street a free person is a huge punishment.

I also said in another post as you have said now, this was not an act of swatting a fly or crushing a cockroach. This was an extremely violent act. If the kids hit the kangaroo, saw blood and thought omg, what have i done and stopped there, i'd be saying that these kids showed remorse and a level where they understood what they had done was wrong. But to continue to club it until death is another matter. It seems that they were not happy until it was dead and it's that i find disturbing. It worries me also that such low regard for any life form could lead to an innocent human victem in the future. Will the experts then be saying 'well, he was a little disturbed'. that's why i believe there needs to be a prevention course in place before waiting to see what they do next and to who.

It's 03.20 am here in Britain and i must get to bed. I will chat further tomorrow. Have a good night.

Some parents put their children in a military camp for destructive teens, and it works.....they are highly commanded to follow every instruction throughout, or else!

.......its worse then a regular adult military camp.

oscar;1037407 wrote: This has been a lot of my debate with Spot. I do believe that the kids have to know that they have commited a crime and there is some form of punishment. If we do place them in a private run re-habilitation unit without punishment, then my fear is, that it would be no more than a children's home and the message to the kid was lost.

In a youth prison, just the very loss of liberty is a form of punishment. Just the right to walk down the street a free person is a huge punishment.

I also said in another post as you have said now, this was not an act of swatting a fly or crushing a cockroach. This was an extremely violent act. If the kids hit the kangaroo, saw blood and thought omg, what have i done and stopped there, i'd be saying that these kids showed remorse and a level where they understood what they had done was wrong. But to continue to club it until death is another matter. It seems that they were not happy until it was dead and it's that i find disturbing. It worries me also that such low regard for any life form could lead to an innocent human victem in the future. Will the experts then be saying 'well, he was a little disturbed'. that's why i believe there needs to be a prevention course in place before waiting to see what they do next and to who.

It's 03.20 am here in Britain and i must get to bed. I will chat further tomorrow. Have a good night.


Have a peaceful night's sleep oscar.

It drives me crazy when I hear of someone murdering someone.....and then included in the report is the fact that the person had shown signs of violence previously. I always think if they had taken that previous violence seriously then the current crime would likely have been prevented. The first responsibility of our justice system is to protect the public. So my real answer is ...it depends on the crime. Economic or mischief crimes could be handled with rehab. But violent crimes should be handled much differently. Talk to you tomorrow oscar.

Odie;1037420 wrote: Some parents put their children in a military camp for destructive teens, and it works.....they are highly commanded to follow every instruction throughout, or else!

.......its worse then a regular adult military camp.


Yes I have heard and read that these types of camps do work. Years ago I read that the original idea for these camps came from some studies that were done. The studies revolved around men who had been in trouble several times before entering the (adult) military. These men finished their time in the military and the interesting thing was they never got in trouble after the military. So then someone thought of the idea of putting kids in a similar environment.....and it works for most of them.

Odie;1037420 wrote: Some parents put their children in a military camp for destructive teens, and it works.....they are highly commanded to follow every instruction throughout, or else!

.......its worse then a regular adult military camp.


Or else what?

spot;1037434 wrote: Or else what?


Or else they have to shine boots until their little fingers are numb. They get the message pretty quickly.

wildhorses;1037454 wrote: Or else they have to shine boots until their little fingers are numb. They get the message pretty quickly.


If that were the full extent of the threat held against them I don't think they'd follow orders.

That's why I asked what the implied threat of "or else" encompassed.

It's an honest enough question, surely. Deflecting it with a joke isn't going to help me understand what's understood by others here.

wildhorses;1037427 wrote: Yes I have heard and read that these types of camps do work. Years ago I read that the original idea for these camps came from some studies that were done. The studies revolved around men who had been in trouble several times before entering the (adult) military. These men finished their time in the military and the interesting thing was they never got in trouble after the military. So then someone thought of the idea of putting kids in a similar environment.....and it works for most of them.


the teenage girl military camps are wicked, they get away with nothing, actually watching a program on it awhile....felt sorry for some, huge male sergant, nasty as hell..............but honestly, this is what trouble teens need.

then there was a hell of a bitch of a woman who was in charge of daily routines.....ya had to see actually see and listen to her,

all cadets rise now..........screaming it at the top of her lungs!

they would rise and aswer immediately, cadet sarah is up mam'am.



brutal it is, but these teens need this.

and those girls were up in a matter of a second.

spot;1037456 wrote: if that were the full extent of the threat held against them i don't think they'd follow orders.

That's why i asked what the implied threat of "or else" encompassed.

It's an honest enough question, surely. Deflecting it with a joke isn't going to help me understand what's understood by others here.


i am not joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And i am getting dang tired of your attitude. You are a trouble maker!!!!!!

Do not....and i repeat.....do not talk to me like that again!!!!!!!

If you want to act like a dang idiot...have at it...but leave me alone.

Start a fight with someone else!!!!! You are a jerk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My question was directed at Odie, you intercepted it for some reason with a complete non sequitur. "Else what" is an enquiry into what sanction can be applied to someone refusing the orders at a camp like that. Do it or we'll send you home? Do it or we'll lock you in solitary for a few days? I've no idea what limits apply, it's why I asked. If the threat is seriously "or you'll shine shoes" the obvious response is "make me!". There has to be an end-game where a limit's reached, I wondered what the limit was.

spot;1037481 wrote: My question was directed at Odie, you intercepted it for some reason with a complete non sequitur. "Else what" is an enquiry into what sanction can be applied to someone refusing the orders at a camp like that. Do it or we'll send you home? Do it or we'll lock you in solitary for a few days? I've no idea what limits apply, it's why I asked. If the threat is seriously "or you'll shine shoes" the obvious response is "make me!". There has to be an end-game where a limit's reached, I wondered what the limit was.


They will physically make them shine those boots....believe me. Those kids meet their match in those camps. Those sargents know what they are doing. They handle adult men and women in the military. Many of the same punishments apply. And it does not matter if your question was directed at odie. That is the nature of chat. I happen to know what I am talking about as I know someone who works in a boot camp. Don't you ever talk to me in that condescending tone. My answer was an honest answer. What made you think it was a joke? If you are asking the question it is because you don't know. I just answered your question.

wildhorses;1037482 wrote: They will physically make them shine those boots....believe me. Those kids meet their match in those camps. Those sargents know what they are doing. They handle adult men and women in the military. Many of the same punishments apply. And it does not matter if your question was directed at odie. That is the nature of chat. I happen to know what I am talking about as I know someone who works in a boot camp. Don't you ever talk to me in that condescending tone. My answer was an honest answer. What made you think it was a joke? If you are asking the question it is because you don't know. I just answered your question.


My problem is that you still haven't. You're talking about physical handling? That's the first time it's been suggested, it's a major escalation over shouting. To what extent does US law allow physical assault in this context?

In the UK there are systems of restraint available within judicial detention centres but outside of those what you're describing would be prosecuted by the police regardless of the age of the child.

spot;1037483 wrote: My problem is that you still haven't. You're talking about physical handling? That's the first time it's been suggested, it's a major escalation over shouting. To what extent does US law allow physical assault in this context?

In the UK there are systems of restraint available within judicial detention centres but outside of those what you're describing would be prosecuted by the police regardless of the age of the child.


Why would it be prosecuted? When the parents take their child there they agree to this. A parent can give this permission. A parent is allowed to administer corporal punishment and can give permission to someone else to do it too.....within reason of course. They can't beat them with a bat or anything. But the parent can give permission for any corporal punishment that they themselves would be able to administer.

How dispiritingly barbaric. I knew people like that when I was a child. There are few classes of people I'd want to see broken so badly as to be unable to continue their lifestyle but people like that I would. Almost cheerfully, on reflection. Bones sticking through flesh, eyes ruptured, that sort of damage. Bastards.

And yes, of course what you're describing is illegal in the UK.

spot;1037487 wrote: How dispiritingly barbaric. I knew people like that when I was a child. There are few classes of people I'd want to see broken so badly as to be unable to continue their lifestyle but people like that I would. Almost cheerfully, on reflection. Bones sticking through flesh, eyes ruptured, that sort of damage. Bastards.

And yes, of course what you're describing is illegal in the UK.


Oh get over it. There you go whining again. Those camps work for many many kids. They are able to change the path they are on. So since it does work to change the destructive path that many are on....why would you be against it? Maybe you would prefer that these kids are just let go into a life of crime? They are sent to these camps when all else has failed.

Because, for a significant fraction of my childhood, I was brought up by sadists whom I equate with the people you're describing, who were also paid to do what they were doing just as the people you describe. It leaves a measure of resentment. There's no justification for the lifelong psychological damage they inflict.

You seem not to have noticed my factual statement that what you're describing is illegal in the UK.

spot;1037492 wrote: Because, for a significant fraction of my childhood, I was brought up by sadists whom I equate with the people you're describing, who were also paid to do what they were doing just as the people you describe. It leaves a measure of resentment. There's no justification for the lifelong psychological damage they inflict.

You seem not to have noticed my factual statement that what you're describing is illegal in the UK.


Yes ....you were asking about the legality in the USA. I don't know about UK

It is against the law in the UK to even smack a child. Unfortunately, this country over history does have a criminal record of barbaric cruelty to children. I do applaud our government for abolishing any form of physical intervention by parents.

I am a fan of US t.v. programmes such as 'Sally Jessie Rapheal', 'Montel Williams' and 'Ricki Lake'.

I have seen many an episode where stroppy teenagers go off to 'boot camp' and we have a similar show here by 'Trisha Goddard' where the same was tried.

Where it fell down here was simply the laws we have in place, do not allow the Sergeant Major's to get as tough with them as they can in the US. By all means, the parents can sign all responsibility over to the boot camp for their child but if a hand was put on that child, the child can rightly go screaming to the police as the Sergeant Major would have commited a criminal offence. Also, British kids are extremely aware of their rights in this country and they would simply tell them to **** off. There would be nothing that anyone could do either.

The US versions of boot camp that i have seen, i do have a problem with. I am not as aware of the facts as you American friends are obviously, as i am over here watching your shows. From what i have seen, please correct me if i'm wrong, and the problem i have with the UK version, is that it is based on stroppy teenagers and not disturbed children as we are discussing with the kangaroo killing kids.

If the kid has commited a criminal offence, then it is that, a criminal offence, dealt with by the courts as they see fit.

What i have seen in these shows, is kids that are lazy, unco-operative with their parents and really just a bloody nuisence. The same with our kids who think the world owes them a living.

There-fore, while the boot camps certainly do make these kids reform very quickly, i find the regime extremely harsh for a kid who has just gone off the rails as a teen. Some-thing all teens go through with hormone changes etc, and something the kid is very likely to grow out of in a short while.

If a kid has commited a criminal offence and that offence is deemed to be disturbing and fore-warning of future barbaric acts, then i believe the authoritie's have to step in and 'punish' or re-habilitate' that child before they have chance to claim more victems. As in the case with the kids and the kangaroo.

When there is no sign of real disturbance in a child but simply that the parents are having a hard job controlling the stroppy teen, i believe it is a 'cop out' by the parents to hand them over to some-one else to get tough with them.

I also believe that boot camp is sensationalised t.v. and we only see the shows where there was a positive outcome. I always wondered how many episode's they filmed in order to get one good positive result. How many failed miserably? We will never know.

I applaud the kids that did come out the other end re-conditioned and took boot camp on board and the work done for them but we also have no idea of how these kids behaved the moment the camera's were off them, the Sergeant Major was gone and it was back to normal.